Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Preface of joseph andrews
Preface of joseph andrews
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Preface of joseph andrews


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Preface. Fielding defines and defends his chosen genre, the comic epic, or “comic EpicPoem in Prose.” Claiming a lost work of Homer as precedent, he explains that the comic epic differs from comedy in having more “comprehensive” action and a greater variety of incidents and characters; it differs from the “serious Romance” in having lower-class characters and favoring, in “Sentiments and Diction,” the ridiculous over the sublime. Fielding is particularly concerned to differentiate the comic epic, and comedy generally, from burlesque: “no two Species of Writing can differ more widely than the Comic and the Burlesque,” for while the writer of burlesque depicts “the monstrous,” the writer of comedy depicts “the ridiculous.” “The Ridiculous only . . . falls within my Province in the present Work,” and Fielding accordingly goes on to define it. “The only Source of the true Ridiculous (as it appears to me) is Affectation,” to which Fielding assigns two possible causes, “Vanity, or Hypocrisy.” Vanity is affecting to be better than one is: the vain man either lacks the virtue or quality he claims to have, or else he claims to possess it in a greater degree than he actually does. By contrast, hypocrisy is affecting to be other than one is: the hypocritical man “is the very Reverse of what he would seem to be,” and Fielding gives the example of a greedy man pretending to be generous. The ridiculous arises from the discovery of affectation, and as hypocrisy is a more egregious form of affectation than is vanity, so, says Fielding, the sense of the ridiculous arising from its discovery will be stronger than in the case of vanity. Fielding anticipates the criticism that, in addition to affectation, he has given a great deal of space in the novel to “Vices, and of a very black Kind.” Vices, which inspire moral revulsion rather than amusement, are not the stuff of comedy. Fielding acknowledges the presence of vices in his story but offers several mitigating considerations, among which is the fact that they are not very potent, “never produc[ing] the intended Evil.” Finally, Fielding addresses the characters of the novel, claiming that all are drawn from life and that he has made certain alterations in order to obscure their true identities. Fielding also conciliates his clerical readers by emphasizing that the curate Mr. Abraham Adams, though he participates in a number of low incidents, is a credit to the cloth due to his great simplicity and benevolence. Chapter I. Fielding justifies the moral agenda of his novel by observing that “Examples work more forcibly on the Mind than Precepts.” Inspiring stories about virtuous figures will have a better moral effect than the recital of maxims, because in them “Delight is mixed with Instruction, and the Reader is almost as much improved as entertained.” As instances of the positive moral influence of written accounts of exemplars of virtue, Fielding cites two recent publications, in both cases sarcastically. The first is Samuel Richardson’s Pamela (1740), an epistolary novel about a virtuous maidservant; Fielding detested the novel and the moral system implicit in it, and both Joseph Andrews and his previous effort in fiction, Shamela, are spoofs of Richardson’s novel. The second is theApology for the Life of Colley Cibber (1740), the autobiography of the scantly talentedPoet Laureate who was despised by Fielding, Alexander Pope, and almost every other contemporary writer of note.